[haswell]

I was referring to the formulation of beliefs based on reasoning that is not sound, e.g. an emotional appeal that convinces someone but has insufficient evidence to back the underlying claim.

For example, I convince you that flying causes insanity because my uncle once flew and went insane, and the situation affected me so deeply that I urge you with every ounce of persuasion I have not to suffer the fate of my uncle. Let’s say you stopped flying because of my story, and later found that you had no reason to believe it. This is what I’m referring to. Maybe it’s “good” that you stopped flying for climate reasons, but the reason you stopped was “bad”. And this matters because the moment you realize the reason was a bad one, you may think there’s no longer a reason not to fly (assuming my story was the only reason you were avoiding it).

You’re describing a scenario where you understand the potential “badness” - presumably based on evidence - but choose the “bad” option anyway. This is a very different scenario and not what I was getting at.